Saturday, October 19, 2013

Found an old article I started writing
in 2007, when I finished some reading on the development of the Republic of Eire since independence. At the time it was still being hailed by foolish 'economists' as one of the new Tigers.

I wanted to say then that any artificially repressed state
economy will go gangbusters when the breaks are taken off. (See any Communist
country, or even overly centralised Socialist country. ie: UK post the
disastrous ‘nationalisations’ of the 50’s and 60’s when Thatcher took the
brakes off).

Also planned to say that just taking the breaks off would get a
‘great leap forward’, but did NOT mean that the country concerned was
inevitable going to rule the world. Really, really wanted to make the point that
starting a boom just means taking the breaks off, but sustaining it means
serious and ongoing economic reform…

Was also going to suggest that Ireland, and
China would have the same trajectory, and plateau, as the Asian Tigers a decade
earlier, or Japan prior to that… Wish I had published this pre GFC…

Enjoy.

One of the best quotes from Yes Prime Minister is when they are trying
to arrange seating at an international forum, or funeral, or something; and it
has to be pointed out that seating nations alphabetically will put Iran, Iraq
and Israel in a line. Benard
suggests tht at least they will be seperated by Ireland which might be better, only
to have Sir Humphrey explain that Ireland never makes anything better.

As the programs were written at the time when the IRA was still getting
huge amounts of American donated money to help fund blowing up school buses, pulling
bank jobs, and kneecapping fellow Catholics for not being Republican enough; it
is fair to suggest that the writers were not being unfair in their
comments. However it is not until
you investigate the real details of the Irish problem that you realise just how
sarky the comments were.

The Irish problem that most people think about is terrorism. Actually these days (still writing in 2007 here) it is more blatant
thuggery and crime, because one of the side effects of 9/11 is that even
Americans have come to accept that funding terrorists is probably not a good
thing: so the IRA are resorting to more traditional methods of fundraising and
intimidation. However that is only
the tip of the iceberg.

The IRA and it’s more cuddly front Sein Fienne, would like to pretend
that the real issue is ‘integration’ of Ireland, by which they mean reconquoring
the northern provinces – preferably by force apparently, seeing the Northern irish have absolutely no desire to be 'integrated'. (This can be compared to the Northern States of the US insisting on their right to reconquor the Southern states, when they insisted that they had as much right to issue a Declaration of Independaence as the northerners had 90 years earlier... but we digress.)

For those who don’t know, the only reason that the northern provinces
of Ireland are part of the United Kingdom instead of part of the Republic of
Eire, is that they have long objected to being threatened and intimidated in
the name of unity and justice. In
fact the Act of Parliament which finally made the northerners part of the United Kingdom – instead of just
another part of Ireland – was provoked by yet another aggressive and threatening
act by the Southern provinces... when they ditched their Dominion status and formally became a Republic.

(Which they did partly in a fit of pique when their great European ally failed to humble Britain in a short war... Poor Eire had as little success subtly supporting Adolf Hitler against the evil English as the US did actively supporting Napoleon. Though I suppose the English didn't have to burn Dublin to the ground in the 1940's. Amusingly, it was American troops that were eventually detailed by the Allies to occupy Ireland if they invited the Germans in... More digression.)

Ireland was granted Dominion status in the 1920’s, but, because of
unresolved sectarianism, two sub sections were created, and the people in
various counties got to vote for which one they wanted to join. This was all part of the vast
enthusiasm for national determinitation which an idiot American President –
Wilson – foisted on the League of Nations at the end of the Great War. It lead to the collapse of relatively stable multi-national states such as the Austro-Hungarian and Turkish Empires (where peoples of many nationalities had lived in – relative – harmony for
generations), and the formation of dozens of tiny competing statelets whhich have
spent most of the 90 years since in bloodbaths of wars, pogroms and ethnic cleansing. (In 2007 I was thinking more about the Balkans, but in 2013 I am obviously more impressed by Syria and its neighbours...)

This misplaced idealism caused the partition of, amongst
others, India, China, Palestine, Turkey, Yugoslavia, and of course
Ireland. It also caused the
partitioned offshoots – Pakistan, Taiwan, Israel, large parts of the Middle
East, and northern Ireland: to live in dangerous armed camps at perpetual fear
of their obnoxious and aggressive neighbours. (Or maybe I got some of those aggressors and aggrieved
backwards – I suppose it depends on the year).

The division of the Dominion of Ireland was not the preferred option of
the British. It made no sense to
them that a single island have two competing governments, and they couldn’t
imagine that there was any good reason that such a minor point of doctrine
would make for a permanent separation.

However they underestimated the power of democracy.

Party politics in Eire got dirty fast. Some of them were just the inevitable result of a bunch of
ignorant peasants with no understanding of how modern states work trying to set up their own tailored idealised state. They wanted to both reduce emigration,
and return the state to an idealised rural peasant farm economy
simultaneously: without realising
that you can only reduce the desire to leave by raising living standards - not
lowering them. (The result? More small farms
inherited by the older sons who get married later and later, leaves an awful lot
of women and younger sons wanting to leave. Fancy that!)

As another example, attempts to ban women under the age of 21 emigrating to the
much better educated and paid teaching and nursing jobs available in the UK should hardly have been considered sensible even by the dangerously stupid – but we
are talking nationalistic, idealistic, and socialist politicians here. (Or maybe I should have just said 'politicians' without any qualification... except perhaps 'elected'?)

As a result the backward looking paternalistic and peasant oriented
(and Catholic dominated) state of Eire had a hard time attracting the
enthusiasm of even Catholics in the more modern, secular and freer north. In the post Second World War period
when the British introduced the welfare state, even the most hard nosed
republican idealist would have had to think twice about taking the massive cut
in living standards and life expectancy involved in voluntarily joining the
south.

Not that voluntary joining seemed much of an option. Repeated attempts to work out
compromises in the 20’s and 30’s had fallen foul of democratic politics, as
parties in both north and south dug in harder and harder to impress their
constituencies. The North put more
and more theoretically unofficial restrictions on Catholics, but, to be fair, often in response to the South putting harsher and harsher restrictions on
their Protestants. Both ‘sides’
were behaving appallingly, but the demographics indicate that more and more
people were leaving the South for the North throughout – both Protestants and Catholics.

The Republic of Eire belatedly realised that such stupid policies as
excusing the idealised farmers from taxation, and making anything resembling a
modern industry carry the tax burden, might be a problem. They finally faced
the need for a modern economy, and took the brakes off. Leading economists and
other stupid commentators were quickly encouraged to suggest that Eire was the ‘next big thing’ in
European super economies. (Theoretically economists aren’t necessarily stupid,
but in practice a surprising number seem to take pride in achieving that
distinction.)

The truth is of course, that the ‘great leap forward’ by the economy of
the Republic of Eire – like that of China and many other places – is not
inevitably going to lead to an ever increasing standard of living for all their
citizens. It will certainly lead to their living standards mostly catching up
with, or even temporarily overtaking, those of their more advanced neighbours.
But it is unlikely to see them completely supplanting those neighbours unless
their institutions can adapt fast enough to keep up.

More likely the ‘great leap forward’, will lead to a ‘great big
bubble’, and to an inevitable 'great big, bloody painful’ correction.

Having reviewed the above 2007 text in October
2013, and found it amusing, I will add some final comments on China, which many commentators are still imagining as a Tiger…

The Republic of Eire has leapt, and fallen, and is struggling to get
back on its feet. This was both inevitable, and easily predictable, to anyone
with a modicum of historical understanding of economics.

China has removed the brakes, and has leapt forward: and, despite the bullshit from the ‘inevitable
superpower’, ‘world’s greatest economy’
theorists, China will have its fall and its pain, before it advances – far more slowly – again. Probably fairly soon, unfortunately.

(Infrastructure investment in China is at impossible levels as a percentage of the economy; whole empty cities and go nowhere freeways have been built, often shoddily; wage levels and competitiveness are now being effectively undercut by many other countries such as Mexico; and the restrictions on private investment are leading to a property bubble that might make Spain look restrained. And that is before the Communist Party wakes up to the monster they have unleashed by educating a large middle class which now wants a say! Invest by all means, if you have funds to spare, but please don't fantasize about double figure returns for decades to come.)

This does not mean the end for either economy. It just means that
future growth is going to take a lot more ponderous and painful reform than the
first easy steps of removing aritificial roadblocks and letting her rip.

The moral of the story... if 'economists' announce that your economy is the next unstoppable tiger, be afraid, be very afraid.

Friday, October 4, 2013

This is a short extract from a 15,000 word article on Operation Barbarossa that I wrote for the special annual edition of "Against the Odds" Magazine a couple of years ago. I offer it here as a fun bit of speculation. I look forward to your comments.

Operation Barbarossa started later than was planned, that is
incontrovertible.

Many historians follow then British Foreign Minister AnthonyEden in pointing to the diversion of large numbers of Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe
forces into a two month campaign in the Balkans, as a key reason for the
Germans being ‘too late and too slow’ in Barbarossa. Historian John Keegan for instance,
claims that Germany’s response to the Britain landing troops to support Greece’s
fight against Mussolini, diverted resources which “immensely assisted” the
survival of the Soviet Union. Filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl claimed that Hitler
had told her “if the Italians hadn’t
attacked Greece and needed our help, the war would have taken a different
course. We could have anticipated the Russian cold by weeks and conquered
Leningrad and Moscow. There would have been no Stalingrad”.

This view has been disputed, not least by the Soviets and
their apologists. Many and varied claims explain how diverting dozens of crack
divisions to a hard campaign, in incredibly difficult terrain, where they
suffered significant losses, really had no affect whatsoever on the
effectiveness of Barbarossa.

Amongst the dross is one very good point: spring was late in
Russia in 1941; this caused the Germans to delay the attack until good weather.
This excellent suggestion even has supporting evidence from repeated delays in
the attack on France the previous year, most due to poor weather. The parallels
are far from identical: Germany was already at war with France, which was
mobilized, fully entrenched, and combat ready (and attempting counter-attacks
in some places). Notably, Germany paid much less attention to weather when
mounting surprise attacks on countries with whom it was at peace – Poland,
Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece etc.

We will assume (for argument’s sake) that HQ convinced
Hitler to hold back for better conditions as they had the previous year
(dubious given Hitler’s growing confidence that he was a military genius who
knew better than his sluggard generals.) We will further assume that the Wehrmacht was better off waiting for the
clearer weather, because it allowed faster and more effective attacks, and
better logistic support to maintain momentum. That is still far short of saying
the Balkans campaign did not negatively impact the success of Barbarossa.

The first and most obvious way the Balkans campaign
negatively impacted the success of Barbarossa is casualties: casualties amongst
men and machines on the ground, but also in the air and at sea. The Yugoslav
and Greek elements of the campaign, despite remarkable successes, cost a significant
number of men and machines. The most experienced, and best-trained, crack
assault troops are damaged, not the slow moving infantry who form the vast bulk
of the Barbarossa assault.

The German order of Battle for the Balkans campaign shows
that the vast majority of the forces diverted to the Balkans were crack troops.
Of the 33 odd divisions listed 10 were Panzer, two were Light, 4 were Mountain,
2 were SS, with only 15 infantry divisions (several of these the rare and elite
motorized ones). Indeed six of the ten army corps involved was motorized, meaning
50‑60% of the divisions in the Balkans campaign armored or motorized compared
to 15‑20% in Barbarossa as a whole.

The actual casualties the Germans suffered in most of their Balkans campaign were not all that heavy, with one exception...

Losses in the assault on Crete are truly horrific. Probably 284 aircraft lost, and several hundred damaged. To quote the Wipedia Crete article: The major loss of transport aircraft would later seriously affect attempts to re-supply German forces in Stalingrad.The elite
assault infantry (5th mountain division) were massacred at sea by
the Royal Navy. Worse, the remains of the elite paratroops were so decimated
that Hitler declared they would never risk an airborne attack again. This was a
grave blow to the Directive 21 plan that “Russian railways will either be
destroyed… or captured at their most important points (river crossings) by the
bold employment of parachute and airborne troops”. General of Paratroops Kurt
Student dubbed Crete, “the graveyard of the German paratroopers… a disastrous
victory”. Fortunate Soviets!

Imagine the impact of those
extra divisions of elite ground and parachute troops at, for example, Moscow.
Is it possible to believe that the loss or weakening of those units had no effect?

In addition, the rest of the war would
see an ever increasing need to garrison the Balkans against insurrection and
Allied counterattacks. (The Wehrmacht
was in such a hurry to get back to the Barbarossa start lines, that it did not
‘clean up’. An estimated 300,000 armed Yugoslav troops simply headed to the
mountains.) An ever increasing number of divisions were no longer available for the Russian front. Did that have no effect either?

Next comes the issue of wear and tear. The divisions first
assembled for Barbarossa were, in the main, either completely new formations,
or veteran formations at least partly re-equipped with more powerful and more
modern tanks and guns. Most of the 600,000 trucks available were refurbished
since the French campaign, or indeed were of French origin (increasing spare
parts problems), and many had suffered from being driven the length of Europe
to the start lines. It seems likely that tanks and trucks which broke down
several hundred miles into the Soviet steppes might have made it a bit further
had they not done several hundred miles through the Balkan mountains a couple
of months earlier? Kleist’s 1st Panzer Group in particular, the
group that achieved such a comparatively slow advance at Army Group South, had
detoured most of the way to the Mediterranean before reaching its start point
for Barbarossa. Von Weich’s Second Army, the one that ran out of steam in
the western suburbs of Moscow, was another army that had toured the Balkan
Mountains first. No effect?

Munitions have to be an issue too. The profligate use of
carefully built up supplies during the Balkan campaign would not have been easy
to replace on the Russian front. Even if German factories could replace them in
time, they had to get them to the front line in Russia.

This brings up the biggest issues: logistics. Germany had
limited access to the logistical support necessary to move the vast quantities
of material needed to keep an army in the field and fighting. In many campaigns
you find reports of German generals (Rommel for instance), practically going
down on their knees in gratitude when they capture a supply dump, which allows
them to keep moving a few more days. (General Patton later reported similar
feelings in his advance through France.) Redirecting vast quantities of supplies
from the Barbarossa supply dumps into the Balkans must have put an even greater
strain on transport services and their trucks, than it did on the fighting
troops. There are, of course, other ways to fill up gaps in the logistics
train... transport aircraft spring to mind but see above re losses at Crete. The
German army also had 750,000 horses for Barbarossa, creatures even less likely
to be fresh after a quick trip to the Balkans than trucks.

It is simply unreasonable to imagine that the Balkan campaign
did not make a significant difference to the chances of survival of the Soviet
Union.

About Me

A professional historian and educator challenges some assumptions.
(A sometimes tongue-in-cheek polemic, with a Socratic emphasis on challenging people to argue back. Please do so... I make some of it outrageous largely to encourage a debate).